We are fortunate that there are many administrators and faculty members who do see students as legitimate and important stakeholders in their own education, and seek our input. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and I think there are times where people are hesitant to turn to students for help. I am not going to pretend that students will always have the right ideas for university policies, and sometimes students simply lack a knowledge base that is necessary for understanding the inner workings of our school. However, students have a unique perspective in the college setting—we are the ones who live the campus experience on a day-to-day basis, and at the ground level. This unique perspective should not be undervalued, and can be essential in providing critical and meaningful feedback to the University.

As I think about leaving campus soon, my hope is that members of the University will continue to find value in seeing students as partners in campus life and the undergraduate experience, and continue to solicit their input and their feedback. There are many administrators and faculty who incorporate this into their daily routine, and for that, I couldn’t be more thankful. And for the ones who don’t—it is sad, because they are missing out on a great deal of knowledge that could make our school that much better—I’m pretty sure by now I’ve seen at least four student redesigns of WebSTAC, and they all look fantastic.

I also hope that the students will continue to stay active on campus, and create meaningful partnerships with University members and community members to improve college life. It is through student ideas, projects and creations that our campus truly grows. Sometimes the timeline for students can be frustrating—talk to the two Student Union senators who relentlessly worked on Syllabi Central for the past two years. In the end though, they would tell you it was worth it. And their work, along with all the other students who give back to our campus life, continues to legitimize students as meaningful stakeholders in the University.

This might have been a smart strategy—if the ban had the backing of the Wash. U. community in the first place. But the policy was put in place unilaterally by the administration with almost no student input. Community enforcement makes little sense when the community itself had not reached a consensus on a ban. Thus, we feel that the obligation rests on the University to effectively enforce its own ban.

Those who do not blatantly smoke cigarettes on campus have taken to smoking en masse on Forsyth Boulevard. This situation is arguably less favorable than before: Smokers have now condensed into an area that invariably gets a large amount of pedestrian traffic from students on the South 40. And every single campus tour makes the turn from the Forsyth sidewalk toward the Danforth University Center, leading potential students and families right through a veritable army of smokers. Clearly, this isn’t good marketing—especially when “Tobacco Free” stickers now adorn every door on campus. Without tighter control and clearer stipulations on where and when people can consume tobacco products, the campus ban could do more image-wise harm than help.

Ultimately, Wash. U. can’t rely on students and community members to enforce the tobacco ban. Policies and penalties regarding smoking on campus need to be outlined explicitly—and they need to be consistently enforced by Wash. U. Otherwise, as more and more smokers pass under the radar, the ban will be ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst.

We urge the Wash. U. administration to seriously consider the logistics of the tobacco plan, and make adjustments to its own policies accordingly. Until then, we should not be forced to police ourselves over a policy implemented without our consent.

The demonstration included students dressed up as Soviet guards or prisoners and a faux gulag made of two-by-fours and chicken wire. Participants played the Soviet national anthem and gave speeches against capitalism and Washington University, a “tool of the capitalists.” We found the gulag offensive on all counts, which was its aim in trying to show “the realities of socialism,” according to Dirk Doebler, president of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL). The language in the speeches was irate but unclear, and we felt that the demonstration trivialized and misrepresented the actual human rights violations that took place at Soviet gulags.

But while YAL could have handled their message better, so could the University. YAL has the right to free speech on this campus, and the University must ensure that its communication about policies is crystal clear. Multiple University administrators used multiple reasons for telling the group to take down their structure, including an art installation policy, an amplified noise policy and, finally, the idea that the structure itself was not safe. But Doebler asserts that the group filled out paperwork beforehand, reserving the space in front of the Women’s Building for the protest. They checked the amplified-sound policy, as well as the banner and ad policies. After not finding any outdoor policies that restricted building—other than a regulation that applied specifically to Bowles Plaza—the group built their structure.

The official position of the administration, according to an e-mail sent out the day after the demonstration, is that the gulag was dismantled because of safety reasons and because the students had not alerted the administration that they were planning on a constructed installation. But the administrators did not approach the group until three hours into its demonstration. And if safety was the administration’s main concern, we have to ask why the University deemed it unsafe to construct the gulag and unsafe to keep it erected but nevertheless told the group to take down the gulag themselves instead of charging them and hiring professionals to dismantle it.

We understand that regulations regarding protests are necessary and advisable. We have no problem with rules regarding the safety of structures on campus—in fact, we appreciate the regulatory efforts that the University has made toward making ThurtenE construction safer. Our confusion stems from the University’s paradoxical concern over the students’ safety and the fact that a firm regulation was never invoked. Video shows a University official admitting that he cannot explain where to find the art installation policy. The administrator who shut down the demonstration is heard on camera saying that she does not have proof of an art installation regulation on her, but is willing to show the student in her office or send the policy via e-mail. Doebler asked that a copy of these regulations be e-mailed to him but, has not yet received a copy.

This is where the real problem lies: Students need easy access to policies that affect their lives on campus, especially those that could be potentially be interpreted to block their rights of free speech.

When asked if the students had a right to be there, one administrator answered, “We’ll see.” The existence of a right should not be contingent on the safety of the structure that seeks to manifest it, and students should have the right to demonstrate regardless of the political nature of their protest. If student demonstrations are to be governed by rules and regulations, these policies need to be easily accessible, and the University administration must be able and willing to explain them.

Amanda Coppock, President of the Women's Panhellenic Association; Chrystal Okonto, Director of the North Side Association; Jeff Nelson, President of Student Union; Kevin Smith, President of the Interfraternity Council; and Hannah Bowling, Speaker of CS40, give updates on the state of the campus on Wednesday night. (Matt Mitgang and Cedric Huchuan Xia | Student Life)

Student Union President Jeff Nelson reiterated his administration’s central message in the first-ever Campus State of the Union address Wednesday evening, pledging to renew student activism.

Nelson stated Student Union’s upcoming goals, calling on the student body to support their sports teams, make campus events greener, reduce dining lines and push for a restructuring of dining hours.

“Our student body will only remain strong if we continue to stay unified and we continue to actively seek ways to improve our experience,” Nelson said during his speech in Mudd House on the South 40.

Campus leaders representing SU, Congress of the South 40, North Side Association, Interfraternity Council and Panhellenic Council also reported on their plans for the coming year. All the groups emphasized their efforts for increasing collaboration.

“This year we look forward to new partnerships between student groups and student leaders to make Wash. U. a more vibrant and connected community,” Sackett said.

Senior Kevin Smith, president of the Interfraternity Council, announced that the fraternities on campus remain strong and trumpeted their success in community service events and in raising thousands of dollars for charity organizations.

The Women’s Panhellenic Association (WPA) delivered a similar message and said the state of the organization is strong, though noting that there was room for improvement. WPA President Amanda Coppock pointed out that one goal this year is to be more organized in record keeping.

“[Sororities] provide some of the most unique leadership roles women can find on our campus,” said Coppock, a senior.

Nelson emphasized greater collaboration with Greek life organizations.

“I’ve always felt it’s a priority that we need to work with Greek life, because it’s a significant portion of campus,” Nelson said. “By and large, they’re unified. If we can get Greek life to support certain initiatives, we can really make things happen.”

Chrystal Okonta, director of the North Side Association, emphasized the organization’s goal to “form a uniquely North Side experience that’s relevant for our students and the composition of our group.”

Junior Hannah Bowling, speaker of the Congress of the South 40, said the group is maintaining its strong programming and will be encouraging students to venture more into St. Louis this year. Bowling also acknowledged that the construction on the South 40 may pose some difficulty for programming.

The speech was the brainchild of Nelson and senior Chase Sackett, speaker of the Senate. The two conceived the idea during the summer with the intention to display a sense of unity and provide students another opportunity to learn about what is happening on campus.

The address was met with positive reactions among the 120 people or so in attendance.

“It was wonderful to see so many student leaders together talking about their plans for the year and their focus on collaboration,” said Mary Zabriskie, assistant vice chancellor for campus life. “It was really impressive.”

SU senators also expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the first State of the Union.

“I think it’s really good. I was surprised we’d never done this before in the past,” said sophomore Kirsten Miller, an SU senator. “We do a lot of things, but I don’t think the students necessarily see that.”

Junior Eliot Walker, co-chair fo the Budget Committee, said the address was a good way for students to learn about the progress of initiatives forwarded by different student groups.

“I think that students get a chance to hear what the candidates are saying during elections, but they don’t get a chance to hear how those initiatives have changed and are redefined,” Walker said. “It gives freshmen an idea [of the initiatives], because they don’t really hear [about them].”

The decision to prohibit smoking and the use of all tobacco-related products on University property was announced last April by the administration, which framed the ban as a public health initiative intended to reduce the effects of secondhand smoke.

“We’re not passing judgment on what you should or should not do,” said Jill Carnaghi, associate vice chancellor for students and dean of campus life. “We’re saying on our campus we want as healthy an environment as possible.”

Carnaghi’s sense is that most undergraduates agree with the ban. But she feels many who supported it were nonetheless frustrated that the University made the decision without taking student input into account.

“I think there was a good number that didn’t like the way the decision was made,” Carnaghi said. “They were upset with how the process went in the decision, rather than the decision itself.”

Senior Tom Aylmer was one such student angry with how the University implemented the ban.

“The people who implemented it didn’t give the students any say in the decision process,” Aylmer said. “I’d like them to at least inform the students as to how they made the decision, what kind of research they did. They should address why they didn’t give the students any consideration.”

Student Union (SU) also decried the lack of student involvement in the administration’s decision. Last April, SU passed a resolution requesting that the administration reconsider the ban after hearing students’ opinions on the matter.

Student Union Senate Speaker Chase Sackett speaks on the SU resolution last semester decrying the University’s tobacco ban. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Although the University is not currently planning to reevaluate its decision, Carnaghi is leading a committee of around 12 undergraduates in the coming year that will offer student input to the administration concerning the ban and its implementation.

“We’ll pull together a committee to identify what are the issues, what are the concerns and then how do we as a group—which is made up of a lot of students, some I hope to be smokers and some not—move forward with this in a realistic way,” Carnaghi said.

The committee likely will include representatives from student groups that may be affected most by the ban, such as international students from cultures more permissive of smoking.

Carnaghi said the committee also will work to engage the broader undergraduate population through open forums for students to express their opinions.

The administration has created separate committees for working with the rest of the University population. The faculty and staff committee is headed by Alan Glass, director of Student Health Services, and Brad Freeman, associate professor of surgery, while the graduate and professional students committee is headed by Sheri Notaro, associate dean in the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.

At present, while the University carries forth with its plans, many students continue to express mixed opinions about the ban.

Junior Adeetee Bhide is allergic to tobacco and has been hospitalized for coughing fits after inhaling secondhand smoke. Despite her sensitivity to tobacco, she said she is still able to see both sides of the issue.

“I’m glad that I’ll be able to do my homework outside without having to worry about people smoking, but I do understand that it’ll be a big inconvenience for people who do smoke,” Bhide said.

Bhide has to hold her breath when she walks past the entrances to Olin Library and Seigle Hall, where smokers often congregate. Several times, she said, she has had to relocate from doing work outside after a smoker lit up a cigarette.

Still, she feels that banning smoking altogether on campus is an unnecessary step.

“I think a better compromise would be to have designated smoking areas,” Bhide said.

Tarbouni has been named director of college counseling at John Burroughs School, effective July 1. Tarbouni will succeed Andy Abbott, who will become the next headmaster of Burroughs.

Associate Vice Chancellor John Berg, who worked with Tarbouni, learned of her decision on Jan. 1. Although he did not expect the move, he said he appreciates Tarbouni’s contribution to campus.

“I was surprised,” he said. “She’s such a great person. The name ‘Nanette’ has been synonymous with Washington University admissions for a long time. We’re very sad, and we’re happy for Nanette.”

Taurboni plans to use her experience at the University to lead a team of four other college counselors guiding juniors and seniors in their college preparation and search.

“I am looking forward to working with students as they prepare to go to college and to learn about the college application process from that side of the desk,” Tarbouni wrote in an e-mail to Student Life.

Julie Shimabukuro, a University graduate and the current director of international recruitment, will succeed Tarbouni as director of admissions. Shimabukuro is excited to fill Tarbouni’s position.

“I think it’s a great opportunity and a big role to fill,” she said. “I’m a Wash. U. alum so this is my school as well. I care about the future of the University. We have such a fantastic community of people.”

Berg is confident that Shimabukuro, who has 15 years of experience working in college admissions, will be able to continue Tarbouni’s success.

“She’ll be a great leader,” Berg said. “Like Nanette, she’s very well versed in the admissions field. She and Nanette have worked together for a long time. She is very well respected among her colleagues at Washington University, around the country and the world.”

At the University, Tarbouni has worked with many Burroughs students. She plans to bring those experiences to her new job and looks forward to continuing her relationship with the Burroughs community.

“John Burroughs is a community filled with wonderful faculty, staff and students,” she wrote. “I have been fortunate to be the Washington University admissions officer for Burroughs for the last 10 years or so. We have quite a few Wash. U. students who came from Burroughs, and I hope that will continue.”

Berg noted Tarbouni’s positivity as one of her assets in the field of admissions.

“Nanette has a wonderful way with people,” he said. “She sets students, their parents and their high school counselors at ease. She’s been a wonderful spokesperson and leader for Washington U. for a long time.”

Sophomore Kevin Cleland, a member of the Student Admissions Committee and Campus Interview Team who worked with Tarbouni as an admissions intern last summer, agreed that Tarbouni’s best asset was the positive atmosphere she created.

“It’s astounding how much she remembers about every student,” Cleland said. “She has a knack for pulling out of people really positive things. She was always ecstatic to be around students, always a happy person.”

Although Tarbouni is excited about the position at Burroughs, she will miss her time at the University.

“Twenty-five years at the same admissions office is quite rare,” she said. “The students, faculty and staff have made this an extraordinary place and one that will be tough to leave.”

Despite the loss of Tarbouni, Berg said that the admissions office would stay strong because of the students it attracts.

“The student recruitment effort relies on the work of our students and the way that they feel about Washington University,” he said. “That’s where the core recruitment effort for Washington University resides.”

Tarbouni attended Tulane University in New Orleans for her undergraduate degree. Following her graduation, she served as an academic counselor at Tulane and later as an academic advisor at University of Missouri-St. Louis. She joined the Washington University admissions team in 1983 and became its head in 1985.

Tarbouni said that though she looks forward to her new job, the transition will be strange.

“It’s hard to imagine that after June, I won’t be coming to work here, walking up the Brookings steps,” she said. “I think my car will just be on auto-pilot to still drive here.”

With additional reporting by Ben Sales

Chair of the Faculty Council and Professor of Chemistry Richard Loomis announced the development at the monthly Arts & Sciences faculty meeting held last Friday.

The policy associated with the position is currently in its drafting stage and will be released sometime in Jan. 2009, Loomis said.

According to the policy draft, the criteria for the position dictates that a professor of the practice must demonstrate either “an exemplary, long-standing record of experience in the professional practice of the field” or “an effective and successful teaching record.”

The professor of the practice is not a position that automatically grants tenure, nor is the position associated with the tenure track.

The commitments that come with the new position also differ from those of tenured faculty.

“[Such] faculty should not have the same obligations in research as a tenure-track professor,” Loomis said.

A professor of the practice would receive the voting rights within the University administration of a lecturer, not those of a tenure-track faculty member.

Loomis emphasized that the level of standards for the professor of the practice were nonetheless “quite high.”

“There will be a high bar in terms of what we are asking for in criteria… [A professor of the practice] must have a significant role in service and in profession,” Loomis said during the faculty meeting.

Loomis cited the example of a well-known architect or performer whose presence on campus would enrich the experiences of both students and faculty alike.

The length of commitment for the professor of the practice is short-term, but full-time, and a one-year contract represents the minimum time commitment. However, in the future each individual department can propose how long it would like the contract to be for members within its own program.

During the meeting, other faculty members brought up the question of whether all long-time lecturers would eventually be granted the title of professor of the practice.

“Many departments have hoped for that, but the Faculty Council would like [the position] to be [reserved for] very elite lecturers,” Loomis said. “So I would say not all long-term lecturers [will be professors of the practice].”

Loomis also stated that there would be a cap on the number of professors of the practice in the University.

A more detailed description of the position’s requirements was composed by the Faculty Senate and has circulated among a few faculty members; the document, however, has yet to be approved and is still unofficial.

According to Loomis, University faculty showed a sizable amount of interest in the implementation of the new position following Senate document’s circulation, as he was soon “bombarded with e-mails” and questions concerning the position.

Apart from the discussion about the new position, the Arts & Sciences faculty meeting also touched upon the topic of a faculty’s role in service and leadership within the College of Arts & Sciences.

According to Loomis, increased questions over the process of choosing which faculty members are selected to take on leadership roles arose after Ralph Quatrano was chosen to stand in as the interim dean for Arts & Sciences.

Last week, a new version of WebSTAC was launched that included a new login interface. The new version provided integration with the single sign-on technology and interfaces for logging into student and faculty applications, including WebSTAC, WebFAC, Telesis and eGrades.

But students may have been confused when they logged onto WebSTAC on the morning of Sept. 15, as the site had reverted to its old version.

According to Sue Hosack, director of the Office of Student Records, the new WebSTAC was in effect for slightly more than 24 hours, and was shut down because a potential security flaw had been identified after the launch.

There were several students and faculty members who reported problems while attempting to log into the new version. Although the new login system handled more than 5,000 logins in a 24-hour period, only one percent of users had difficulty logging in.

When faculty members attempted to log on, the Student Information Services—or student identification—login numbers worked, but the social security number logins did not.

Most faculty members login with their social security numbers.

The new login system was meant to be the first phase of the deployment of WUSTL CONNECT, a technology solution developed by the University and meant to ease the experiences of those logging onto University applications.

WUSTL CONNECT’s focus, according to Ken Trammel, director of application and development in the information services and technology department, is to unite all the Web applications that University students use under one login system with one password.

The system has been in development since the beginning of this year, and will include WebSTAC, Telesis, WebFAC, eGrades, University College Online and Student Health Services.

Trammel says that the benefits of the integration of University applications with WUSTL CONNECT will have more pluses than minuses.

“There are no significant changes to the applications that students use at this time. However, after logging into WUSTL CONNECT users will automatically be logged into other WUSTL CONNECT enabled applications like WebSTAC and Telesis,” Trammel said.“The initial focus is single sign-on for the various applications used by the students, faculty and staff at Wash. U.”

According to Trammel, in January the University will be launching integration with wireless networking, the South 40, the Career Center and other applications.

A revised schedule for launching WUSTL CONNECT will also be announced soon with communications to students, faculty and staff via e-mail, and is expected to launch no later than Oct. 15. This communication will detail all future changes and will include instructions for registering for a new, personalized login ID.

In addition, Trammel says that next year the University can anticipate additional integration between individual schools in the University in order to incorporate additional applications and e-mail under a unified system.

While many students have yet to experience the unified login system, some are excited for it to launch and feel that it will make online management of their academics more intuitive.

“That’s freaking awesome,” senior Kaif Mansuri said. “It’s a pain to continuously put your login information every time to anything. The simpler the better.”

Other students look forward to the system because they say that it will allow the University to keep up with the status quo.

“Other schools integrate everything, why can’t we?” junior Ryan Gill said. “This has been long delayed and it’s about time.”

The secluded, pastoral quadrangles of the American Academy often preview civic change before it gains wide acceptance on Main Street. This is largely the case for the “diversity issue.” The candid and open exchange of ideas that is a vaunted principal of university life has been seen for some time to hinge on the diversity of the participants engaged in that exchange. Today, more women and traditionally under-represented ethnic and racial minorities hold tenure-line professorships and departmental chairs. Indeed, 51 percent of college graduates are female. Yet, this new majority is often without representation among the upper echelons of university administrations.

Here at Washington University, students might rightfully ask, where are the women administrative leaders? Where are the women deans of the University’s schools? Where is the consistent and transparent process with authoritative faculty input to select qualified women and under-represented minority candidates for key posts in the university administration? Where is the senior academic administrator to advance the recruitment, retention and leadership roles for women and ethnic and racial minorities?

Washington University must make the diversity of the university’s leadership as well as the diversity of the faculty ranks and the student body a chief institutional priority in deed as well as word. It is not enough to rearrange the furniture. It is time to undertake a total rehab of the university culture, beginning, I would suggest, with our campus “White House,” Brookings North and South.

The benefits of this transformation go well beyond the satisfaction of an ethical ideal, laudable as that may be. As the current presidential campaign makes plain, more tangible benefits are involved. The real commitment to expanding diversity at every level and rank, but particularly at the highest administrative levels, is crucial for the recruitment and retention of the best faculty and graduate and undergraduate students (male as well as female, white as well as ethnic and racial minorities), who ever more frequently appraise an institution on the basis of this commitment. It is indispensable to being and being seen as a world-class institution. It is, quite simply, not just the right thing to do; it’s the smart thing to do.

Although it is late for Washington University to lead on this issue, it is not too late for us to follow the best examples of our peers: Stanford, Harvard, Cornell, Princeton, Columbia, the University of Wisconsin and the University of Texas, to name a select few. These institutions have established well-funded offices for faculty development and diversity which are uniformly headed by a vice provost from the academic ranks. Each of these institutions has recognized the necessity of appointing a vice provost, as opposed to a staff administrator, to carry out their universities’ diversity missions because only a member of the faculty is fully acquainted with and best able to effect change within academic culture.

It is not necessary to impanel another blue ribbon committee on the gender/diversity issue to offer advice and recommendations on what should be done. Numerous other institutions have mapped the way and shown that the establishment of an Office of the Vice Provost for Diversity to increase the number, the visibility and the work satisfaction of women and underrepresented minority faculty is effective in attracting and retaining the fullest range of faculty and student talent.

There are many leaders at Washington University of good will who have expressed a commitment to taking action on this issue. I have been particularly gratified by the willingness of the Interim Dean’s Office, the new Provost’s Office and the special assistant to the Chancellor for Diversity Initiatives Leah Merrifield to work directly with the Association of Women Faculty to realize authentic progress on the specific question of gender diversity. I believe sincerely that effective change can come and come quickly with the appointment of a Vice Provost for Diversity to the benefit not merely of women and minorities but of our entire university community and the national standing of our institution. I would encourage all those who support this ideal to write to the Office of the Chancellor.